• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical governance >Clinical governance in Australia
【24h】

Clinical governance in Australia

机译：澳大利亚的临床治理

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to overview, background and context to clinical governance in Australia, areas for further development and potential learnings for other jurisdictions. Design/methodology/approach - Commentary; non-systematic review of clinical governance literature; review of web sites for national, state and territory health departments, quality and safety organisations, and clinical colleges in Australia. Findings - Clinical governance in Australia shows variation across jurisdictions, reflective of a fragmented health system with responsibility for funding, policy and service provision being divided between levels of government and across service streams. The mechanisms in place to protect and engage with consumers thus varies according to where one lives. Information on quality and safety outcomes also varies; is difficult to find and often does not drill down to a service level useful for informing consumer treatment decisions. Organisational stability was identified as a key success factor in realising and maintaining the cultural shift to deliver ongoing quality. Research limitations/implications - Comparison of quality indicators with clinical governance systems and processes at a hospital level will provide a more detailed understanding of components most influencing quality outcomes. Practical implications - The information reported will assist health service providers to improve information and processes to e igage with consumers and build further transparency and accountability. Originality/value - In this p iper the authors have included an in depth profile of the background and context for the current state ot clinical governance in Australia. The authors expect the detail provided will be of use to the international reader unfamiliar with the nuances of the Australian Healthcare System. Other studies (e.g. Russell and Dawda, 2013; Phillips et aL, n.d.) have been based on deep professional understanding of clinical governance in appraising and reporting on initaitives and structures. This review has utilised resources available to an informed consumer seeking to understand the quality and safety of health services.
机译：目的-本文的目的是概述澳大利亚临床管理的概况，背景和背景，需要进一步发展的领域以及其他司法管辖区的潜在学习内容。设计/方法/方法-评论；临床治疗文献的非系统性审查；审查澳大利亚国家，州和地区卫生部门，质量和安全组织以及临床学院的网站。调查结果-澳大利亚的临床治理显示出各个司法管辖区之间存在差异，反映出分散的卫生系统，其资金，政策和服务提供的责任被划分为政府级别和跨服务流。因此，保护​​消费者并与消费者互动的机制因人而异。有关质量和安全成果的信息也各不相同；很难找到，并且通常不会深入到有助于告知消费者治疗决策的服务水平。组织稳定性被认为是实现和保持文化转变以提供持续质量的关键成功因素。研究的局限性/意义-将质量指标与医院一级的临床治理系统和流程进行比较，将使人们对最影响质量结果的要素有更详细的了解。实际意义-报告的信息将帮助卫生服务提供者改善信息和流程，以与消费者建立联系，并进一步提高透明度和问责制。原创性/价值-在本文中，作者包括了澳大利亚当前临床治理现状的背景和背景的深入介绍。作者希望所提供的详细信息将被不熟悉澳大利亚医疗保健体系细微差别的国际读者使用。其他研究（例如Russell和Dawda，2013年; Phillips等人，未注明）则基于对临床治理的深刻专业理解，以评估和报告诱因和结构。这项审查利用了可供了解情况的消费者了解卫生服务质量和安全的资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号